Zorach+v.+Clauson

Zorach v. Clauson Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 31-February 1, 1952; Decided April 28, 1952

Background: Reminiscent of McCollum v. Board of Education, New York City’s public school system developed a program in which students could temporarily leave campus and attend religious centers for faith-based instruction and exercises. Defendants claim the schools only allowed children whose parents sent the schools a written request to leave school and attend these religious centers. They also maintain no school ever allowed the religious affiliates to enter their institution and religiously instruct students whose parents had not written school officials prior. Notwithstanding, the plaintiffs retain their stance that the school is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Decision and Rationale: Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court; he ruled that the released time programs were not constitutionally defiant because the religious instruction occurred away from the school campus. Also, no public funding was used to perpetuate the program. In regard to the McCollum v. Board of Education precedent, which ruled using school facilities by religious organizations to provide religious instruction unconstitutional, Douglas made a distinction: “in McCollum…the classrooms were used for religious instruction and the force of the public school was used to promote that instruction…[but] we cannot expand it to cover the released time program.”

Impact: Schools must be cautious when religiosity creeps into the system; however, its presence is unavoidable as it permeates throughout our societal and cultural structure. The sustainability of a school to remain fundamentally principled in its obligation to not promote or coerce religious tenets upon students is crucial. McCollum set a precedent legally denouncing the practice of palpable religious promotion, but Zorach was a more ambiguously precarious situation. Although the court recognized New York City’s public schools did not have students instructed religiously on their campuses, they did allow instruction time to be used for religious purposes on a frequent basis. Schools cannot deny educating students based on religious affiliations, but they must also be careful to avoid actions that can be interpreted in a way deviant from original purposes and yield unintended consequences.

Quiz Question:

True or False?

In Zorach v. Clauson, the court ruled that allowing students to leave school and attend religious centers during a specified time, upon written consent of their parents, violated the First Amendment.


 * Completed Independently by Stephen Brooks

Zorach v. Clauson
United States Supreme Court Argued January 31-February 1, 1952; Decided April 28, 1952

=
In the early 1950s parents of children in New York City public schools suspected that a NYC school's policy of excusing students for religious services during the school day violated the U.S. Constitution according to a recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of //McCollum v. Board of Education//. The Court ruled in the //McCollum// case that it is unconstitutional for schools to excuse students for religious instruction when that instruction is provided and funded by the school system, even if the students have permission from their parents. In New York, however, the school was not providing these services, so the question of constitutionality remained and the case was decided in the Supreme Court.=====

=
The Supreme Court held that it is constitutional to release students from school to receive religious instruction, as long as the students have parent permission and the school is not providing religious instruction. The rationale behind the Court’s opinion is that the separation of church and state is intended to prevent the state from forcing certain religious views on people. It is not, however, intended to prevent state institutions from providing accommodations to people with certain religious views and practices. This decision did not overturn //McCollum//; rather, it fine-tuned the role of schools and government in respect to individual rights.=====

=
In this decision the Supreme Court gave guideline to teachers and schools about how they should treat religious instruction in schools. Although it is unconstitutional to provide religious instruction in schools, thereby “forcing” or “choosing” one religion over another, schools can constitutionally make some accommodations to religious students. The separation of church and state can never be complete because the state and the people who occupy it have religious convictions of their own that they cannot be separated from. Sometimes a student’s religious practice will interrupt their school day. Instead of teachers denying these students the right to practice and learn about their religions, they should allow reasonable accommodations to be made with parent supervision that allow all parties to keep their freedoms.=====

c. Communicating with a student’s parents about future absences due to a religious practice (b)
Zorach v. Clauson Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 31 – February 1, 1952 Decided April 28, 1952

__ Background __ New York City Board of Education developed a program in the mid-twentieth century that would allow students to be released from class to go to a religious center for devotional or instructional time. The centers would let the schools know of any students that did follow through after being let go for that specific reason. Students that declined this opportunity for secular study would stay in class. This program was in an effort to sidestep the issue of separation of church and state by permitting students to leave school property for their religious endeavors. It was thought that this would be the answer for the problem Champaign, Illinois encountered with their program in 1948, as presented in McCollum v. Board of Education. In that case, the schools allocated time during the school day and on school grounds for clergy or representatives of religious associations to present lessons.

__ Decision and Rationale __ The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the New York Court of Appeals that the program does not violate the First Amendment since instruction is not offered at the schools or funded with taxpayer dollars. The basis for the decision was that the original intent listed in the Constitution was to stop governmental forces from pressing religious views on its people lest they face punishment, not to disallow its people from choosing to pursue religious training and practice. Three of the nine justices opposed the ruling.

__ Impact __ As a society with a wide array of philosophical and spiritual ideas embedded in it, it is unreasonable to expect separation of church and state to be absolute. This has been an issue up for debate for centuries now, and will continue to be probably for many more. The courts will always be faced with reasons to interpret our founding documents and subsequent laws, and we will always have disagreements on how to exercise our freedoms. Since 1952, the court has held that students can leave school for religious reasons, even if it interrupts the classroom schedule.

__ Quiz question __ In what way is the Zorach v. Clauson case different from McCollum v. Board of Education? In Zorach, students were allowed to leave school grounds. In McCollum, students were given instruction in the public classrooms on school time.

Reviewed independently by Eileen Boyd